From J.Reid@letterbox.rl.ac.uk Tue Aug  2 19:41:15 1994
Received: from ib.rl.ac.uk by dkuug.dk with SMTP id AA20620
  (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4j for <SC22WG5@dkuug.dk>); Tue, 2 Aug 1994 19:41:15 +0200
Received: from letterbox.rl.ac.uk by ib.rl.ac.uk (IBM VM SMTP V2R1) with TCP;
   Tue, 02 Aug 94 18:40:48 BST
Received: from jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk by letterbox.rl.ac.uk with SMTP (PP) 
          id <sg.17383-0@letterbox.rl.ac.uk>; Tue, 2 Aug 1994 18:38:41 +0100
Received: by jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk (4.1/SMI-4.1) id AA15960;
          Tue, 2 Aug 94 18:40:44 BST
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 94 18:40:44 BST
From: jkr@letterbox.rl.ac.uk (John Reid)
Message-Id: <9408021740.AA15960@jkr.cc.rl.ac.uk>
To: Karl-Heinz.Rotthaeuser@gmd.de
Subject: Re: (SC22WG5.603) Exception Handling Proposal (Ref. N974)
Cc: SC22WG5@dkuug.dk
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29


Thank you for your comments on the exception handling proposal. 
Unfortunately, you were not looking at the current version, which
is pp 166-180 of N995. Several changes were made at the Lake Tahoe
meeting, one of which was to remove the CHECK statement since its 
effect is available with an enable construct with an empty body and
no handler. I believe that this means that your problem 1 is addressed.
The effect of adding immediate is as if we had:

ENABLE (OVERFLOW)
        A1      =       B1*C1
        ENABLE (OVERFLOW)
        END ENABLE
        A2      =       B2*C2
        ENABLE (OVERFLOW)
        END ENABLE
        .
        .
        .
        A10     =       B10*C10
        ENABLE (OVERFLOW)
        END ENABLE

HANDLE
...
END ENABLE

I do not think any reodering by the compiler is now permitted. Of
course, as Rich Bleicamp points out, this may make the execution very
slow, but you do not use immediate if speed is your concern.


I am afraid that looking at your other points will have to wait 
until tommorrow.

Best wishes,
John.